Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > I didn't realize tantra and Hinduism had the concept of "sin," or > used that word in particular. Despite the differences, it is >amazing > how similar it is to Christianity in many ways. Yes there is the concept of sin in hinduism. The sanskrit term for it is "pApa" or "pAtaka".Btw Hinduism includes Tantra. Tantra isnt seperate from hinduism. It is like a sub-set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 I do not beleive that the concept of "sin" is applicable here, except in the most relative and colloquial sense of the word. There is no good energy, no bad energy -- only energy. Think of electricity; the same current might run thru a hospital, where it saves lives, then on thru a prison, where it charges an electric chair and puts a person to death. The electricity is doing nothing right or wrong; it is not saving lives to be good, or ending lives to be evil. It is just being electricity. In the same way, those who cultivate a relationship with Devi become conduits through whom She (Shakti/Energy) flows, either more or less consciously (in most people the flow is unconscious and unrecognized; in great souls, it is totally conscious -- the sadhak has become its eyes and ears; i.e., she or he is Devi). In between the totally unconscious and the totally conscious are the rest of us! As we work through our sadhana, bringing more and more consciousness to our flow of energy, we begin to realize the magnitude of this power and what can be done with it; how we can direct and use it. Will we remain modest and awed at the greatness we are experiencing through Her grace? Or will we forget Her as Devi, and think of Her only as Power -- a force to be controlled, used and directed to fulfill our petty goals and settle petty scores? How we answer that question determines what will happen next. Because the process of our development continues. If we abuse this Divine Power to gratify our lower selves, then we create a closed circuit; we redirect the flow in upon ourselves and eventually this scientifically *must* cause a short circuit (to continue with my electrical metaphor). And if we short-circuit, we become less than we were when we started: not just an unplugged (unconscious) appliance, but an unplugged and damaged appliance that must be repaired (at considerable expense of time and resources) before it can ever be plugged in (made conscious) again. I hope all of this demonstrates why I do not believe the idea of "sin" to be a useful concept in understanding this process. Rather than comparing Tantra or Hinduism with Christianity (which truly is comparing apples and oranges), it might be more useful to compare them to Applied Physics. (The physical sciences are, in fact, a great place for deepeneding one's understanding of Shaktism.) Sin is a moral concept implying reward and punishment; Tantra is a scientific concept implying simply cause and effect. Or so it seems to me. Aum Maatangyai Namahe , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > I didn't realize tantra and Hinduism had the concept of "sin," or > used that word in particular. Despite the differences, it is amazing > how similar it is to Christianity in many ways. > > M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > I do not beleive that the concept of "sin" is applicable here, > except in the most relative and colloquial sense of the word. > I hope all of this demonstrates why I do not believe the idea > of "sin" to be a useful concept in understanding this process. > Rather than comparing Tantra or Hinduism with Christianity (which > truly is comparing apples and oranges), it might be more useful to > compare them to Applied Physics. (The physical sciences are, in > fact, a great place for deepeneding one's understanding of > Shaktism.) Sin is a moral concept implying reward and punishment; > Tantra is a scientific concept implying simply cause and effect. > > Or so it seems to me. I have no idea of christian concept of sin. Lalita Sahasranama(LS): One of the authoritative scriptures of Shakta system has the 174th name of Devi as pApanAshinI and name 743th as pApAraNyadavAnalA The following is an english translation by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry of Bhaskararaya's Commentary on LS pApanAshinI: Destroying Sin By the repitition of (Her) mantra, etc., She destroys the sins of devotees. .....The sinful actions of those who are devoid of varna and asrama, and are wretched, by mere meditation on Devi, become virtuous. pApAraNyadavAnalA: The forest fire (consuming) the forest of sin ......The supreme expiation of all sin whether committed knowingly or unknowingly is said to be the remembrance of the feet of the supreme Sakti...... Which shows that the concept of sin exists in Shakta system. However I donno if the Xian concept of Sin is similar to above. > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > I didn't realize tantra and Hinduism had the concept of "sin," or > > used that word in particular. Despite the differences, it is > amazing > > how similar it is to Christianity in many ways. > > > > M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Namaste, I, too, find it deeply irritating to find any and all things forcibly compared to Christianity. I find, particularly in the public dialog here in the U.S. that Christianity is constantly pushed to the front of the discussion, forcibly made the standard by which all other things are compared and understood. Reminds me of trying to hold an interesting conversation in the home of someone who has an untrained dog. It's disruptive, inappropriate and completely unneccesary. Invariably, the one responsible for letting loose the beloved beast says, with a large grin, something along the lines of: "Well, you can't avoid Fido!" I would be interested in a discussion of those lines that were brought up, that when translated into English, have been translated as "sin" or "sinful" What are the original words and what do they imply in their own context? I find it interesting that mainstream religions frequently become repositories of developed or developing social taboos. Some of them are very narrowly defined: a taboo against eating eggs on a thursday during a new moon in wintertime when one's sister-in-law is pregnant and you've just seen a black cat. Others are more broadly pronounced: not sleeping with your sibling's chosen mates. Or most broadly: not doing things that harm others. To understand concepts is not exactly the same as understanding great texts. There is an interplay between the two. This is why I find it interesting to understand the original language and context. And then forcibly compare it to Dianic Wicca. Just kidding. pr , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > I do not beleive that the concept of "sin" is applicable here, > except in the most relative and colloquial sense of the word. > > There is no good energy, no bad energy -- only energy. Think of > electricity; the same current might run thru a hospital, where it > saves lives, then on thru a prison, where it charges an electric > chair and puts a person to death. The electricity is doing nothing > right or wrong; it is not saving lives to be good, or ending lives > to be evil. It is just being electricity. > > In the same way, those who cultivate a relationship with Devi become > conduits through whom She (Shakti/Energy) flows, either more or less > consciously (in most people the flow is unconscious and > unrecognized; in great souls, it is totally conscious -- the sadhak > has become its eyes and ears; i.e., she or he is Devi). > > In between the totally unconscious and the totally conscious are the > rest of us! As we work through our sadhana, bringing more and more > consciousness to our flow of energy, we begin to realize the > magnitude of this power and what can be done with it; how we can > direct and use it. Will we remain modest and awed at the greatness > we are experiencing through Her grace? Or will we forget Her as > Devi, and think of Her only as Power -- a force to be controlled, > used and directed to fulfill our petty goals and settle petty > scores? > > How we answer that question determines what will happen next. > Because the process of our development continues. If we abuse this > Divine Power to gratify our lower selves, then we create a closed > circuit; we redirect the flow in upon ourselves and eventually this > scientifically *must* cause a short circuit (to continue with my > electrical metaphor). > > And if we short-circuit, we become less than we were when we > started: not just an unplugged (unconscious) appliance, but an > unplugged and damaged appliance that must be repaired (at > considerable expense of time and resources) before it can ever be > plugged in (made conscious) again. > > I hope all of this demonstrates why I do not believe the idea > of "sin" to be a useful concept in understanding this process. > Rather than comparing Tantra or Hinduism with Christianity (which > truly is comparing apples and oranges), it might be more useful to > compare them to Applied Physics. (The physical sciences are, in > fact, a great place for deepeneding one's understanding of > Shaktism.) Sin is a moral concept implying reward and punishment; > Tantra is a scientific concept implying simply cause and effect. > > Or so it seems to me. > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > I didn't realize tantra and Hinduism had the concept of "sin," or > > used that word in particular. Despite the differences, it is > amazing > > how similar it is to Christianity in many ways. > > > > M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hi All: I could see it pissing off people of other spiritual traditions to have their concepts compared to a dominator-mentality Christianity. I could also see how those born into Christianity but now interested in other traditions might take offense on behalf of other cultures about such comparisons. However, my own interest in such comparisons is based on the "ah ha" recognition of how much the many spiritual traditions do, in fact, have in common. We have discussed these commonalities in terms of the Gnostic gospels, and I hope that we can continue to recognize the similarities and share our thoughts without giving or taking offense. It's one of the things I have enjoyed about this group. Satish's statements have been informative, and sharing information is valuable to me. -- Mary Ann , "prainbow61" <paulie- rainbow@u...> wrote: > Namaste, > > I, too, find it deeply irritating to find any and all things forcibly > compared to Christianity. I find, particularly in the public dialog > here in the U.S. that Christianity is constantly pushed to the front > of the discussion, forcibly made the standard by which all other > things are compared and understood. > > Reminds me of trying to hold an interesting conversation in the home > of someone who has an untrained dog. > > It's disruptive, inappropriate and completely unneccesary. > Invariably, the one responsible for letting loose the beloved beast > says, with a large grin, something along the lines of: "Well, you > can't avoid Fido!" > > I would be interested in a discussion of those lines that were > brought up, that when translated into English, have been translated > as "sin" or "sinful" What are the original words and what do they > imply in their own context? > > I find it interesting that mainstream religions frequently become > repositories of developed or developing social taboos. Some of them > are very narrowly defined: a taboo against eating eggs on a thursday > during a new moon in wintertime when one's sister-in-law is pregnant > and you've just seen a black cat. Others are more broadly pronounced: > not sleeping with your sibling's chosen mates. Or most broadly: not > doing things that harm others. > > To understand concepts is not exactly the same as understanding great > texts. There is an interplay between the two. > > This is why I find it interesting to understand the original language > and context. > > And then forcibly compare it to Dianic Wicca. > > Just kidding. > > pr > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > I do not beleive that the concept of "sin" is applicable here, > > except in the most relative and colloquial sense of the word. > > > > There is no good energy, no bad energy -- only energy. Think of > > electricity; the same current might run thru a hospital, where it > > saves lives, then on thru a prison, where it charges an electric > > chair and puts a person to death. The electricity is doing nothing > > right or wrong; it is not saving lives to be good, or ending lives > > to be evil. It is just being electricity. > > > > In the same way, those who cultivate a relationship with Devi become > > conduits through whom She (Shakti/Energy) flows, either more or less > > consciously (in most people the flow is unconscious and > > unrecognized; in great souls, it is totally conscious -- the sadhak > > has become its eyes and ears; i.e., she or he is Devi). > > > > In between the totally unconscious and the totally conscious are the > > rest of us! As we work through our sadhana, bringing more and more > > consciousness to our flow of energy, we begin to realize the > > magnitude of this power and what can be done with it; how we can > > direct and use it. Will we remain modest and awed at the greatness > > we are experiencing through Her grace? Or will we forget Her as > > Devi, and think of Her only as Power -- a force to be controlled, > > used and directed to fulfill our petty goals and settle petty > > scores? > > > > How we answer that question determines what will happen next. > > Because the process of our development continues. If we abuse this > > Divine Power to gratify our lower selves, then we create a closed > > circuit; we redirect the flow in upon ourselves and eventually this > > scientifically *must* cause a short circuit (to continue with my > > electrical metaphor). > > > > And if we short-circuit, we become less than we were when we > > started: not just an unplugged (unconscious) appliance, but an > > unplugged and damaged appliance that must be repaired (at > > considerable expense of time and resources) before it can ever be > > plugged in (made conscious) again. > > > > I hope all of this demonstrates why I do not believe the idea > > of "sin" to be a useful concept in understanding this process. > > Rather than comparing Tantra or Hinduism with Christianity (which > > truly is comparing apples and oranges), it might be more useful to > > compare them to Applied Physics. (The physical sciences are, in > > fact, a great place for deepeneding one's understanding of > > Shaktism.) Sin is a moral concept implying reward and punishment; > > Tantra is a scientific concept implying simply cause and effect. > > > > Or so it seems to me. > > > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > > wrote: > > > I didn't realize tantra and Hinduism had the concept of "sin," or > > > used that word in particular. Despite the differences, it is > > amazing > > > how similar it is to Christianity in many ways. > > > > > > M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hi Mary Ann and Satish: Mary Ann notes, "I hope that we can continue to recognize the similarities and share our thoughts without giving or taking offense. It's one of the things I have enjoyed about this group." Me too. No offense given or taken. Such comparisons do exist, of course, and can be valuable (not to mention intellectually interesting)-- but *only* if we're accurately comparing real similarities and counterparts. And I just don't think that's the case here. Please let me explain: As I mentioned in my last post, "Sin," in the Christian sense, is a moral concept implying reward and punishment. If you sin (i.e., do something that is morally condemned by Christianity), you're bad and you will be punished -- that is, you'll go to Hell after you die. If you're good (i.e., if you follow the prescribed path of the Christian church), you will be rewarded -- that is, you'll go to Heaven after you die. In Hinduism, the conception is different; there is no such moral judgment, per se. There is simply a continuation of the necessary process of shedding karma and moving toward perfection (enlightenment). It need not (indeed cannot) happen in a single life. So the analagous idea in Hinduism is: If you remain in ignorance, you will continue to be reborn until you finally wake up and shed that ignorance. Which brings me to Satish and the Sri Lalitha Sahasranama (LS). As Prainbow suggests, I think the problem here is simply one of loose and approximate translation. Even translations in English of the more esoteric texts of Hinduism assume a fairly comprehensive pre-existing knowledge of the intricacies of Hindu philosophy (especially those texts printed by Indians in India, rather than abroad by Western scholars who generally assume much less contextual knowledge among their target readership). Anyway, Satish gives the 174th name of Devi as pApanAshinI (for those of you following at home, it's the 167th name in some versions of the LS). Satish quotes R. Ananthakrishna Sastry's English rendering of Bhaskararaya's Commentary, in which the name is translated as "pApanAshinI: Destroying Sin." So for comparison, I consulted C. Suryanarayana Murthy's translation of the same document. Sure enough, he translates the name somewhat differently -- as "pApanAshinI: Dispelling All Ignorance." Murthy than cites the Brahmanda Purana, explaining, "dhyAnamatrena pApishthAnAm nrinAm dushkritam sukritayate" (By merely concentrating on Her, ignorance becomes virtue). Similarly, name 743, pApAraNyadavAnalA, can be read as "the forest fire that burns out ignorance." I would hasten to add that in both cases, Murthy *does* offer "sin" as an alternative English rendering of "ignorance." But I don't think too much should be read into that. Satish stated before that he was using the term "sin" colloquially, without any reference to or knowledge of Christian theology. I would guess that Murthy, if he were here (he passed on in 1985 at the age of 87), would say the same. They were using an English word in its vernacular Indian context, not as a Christian term of art. The English term "sinful" might, I think, be adequately rendered in Sanskrit as "adharma," lit. "not right"; against the cosmic order of things. However, "adharma" does not contemplate an evil person on the highway to Hell; but rather a spiritually ignorant person whose actions are setting her or him up for a pretty lousy re-birth. The message of the LS is that such a person may free themselves from their ignorance by merely concentrating on Devi; that She is the sweeping fire Who will clear the dense, tangled underbrush from your soul. Remember, when Devi slayed Mahishasura at the end of their Nine Day battle, he did not plunge into eternal Hell for his evil ways; he simply recognized Her as his Mother. And She did not judge him or condemn him -- She saved him from himself. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Dear Devi Bhakta: Thank you for your in depth explanation. I am glad no offense was taken, or given. However, I think you are missing my point by going into such depth about scripture. I'm actually taking what I'll call an artist's view, or creative license, in my approach to the material. I'm responding to what I see in a quick brush stroke, rather than through dissection. By this view, I'm not trying to distort Hinduism or its subsets. I am simply appreciative when a similarity appears. I was thinking along the lines of, not punishment for "sin," or even "original sin," but what acts or thoughts are considered to be "sin." There are "sins of the flesh," and any kind of immoderation or excess is considered sin in Christianity, and in Hinduism, too, from what I've read. Also, the judgmental quality we see in early Christian scripture, rooted in male authoritarian hierarchical dominance, which still underlies the social fabric of our culture and family life, I see as present in Hindu culture, too. In the caste system as well as in the family structure. I consider it to be present in any hierarchical structure. I also feel that such dominance / hierarchy is present in the scriptures, Hindu as well as Christian. There has been a lack of female scribes for a reason (dominance and hierarchy). To me, this may not lessen any spiritual truth expressed in the scriptures, but it has limited the spiritual truths expressed in scripture. -- Mary Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Jai Maa prainbow61, You posted this comment: "I would be interested in a discussion of those lines that were brought up, that when translated into English, have been translated as "sin" or "sinful" What are the original words and what do they imply in their own context?" I have had a lifelong love of sacred scriptures. I majored in Ancient Languages in seminary and still love reading and translating ancient texts. I would humbly offer the following information with the prayer that it is useful. The Christian Bible uses the English word "sin" about 400 times. There about 300 uses in the Old Testament and 100 in the New. There are 5 different words in Hebrew (OT) translated "sin" and 1 in Greek (NT). The most commonly used Hebrew word is "chata" and its meanings include "to miss, to forfeit, to lack, to expiate, to change the mind, to condemn, to make a mistake." An example of this word is from a story where some lepers were outside a city that was under seige. The beseiging army became spooked and fled but the inhabitants of the city had no idea and were starving inside the walls. The army fled without taking anything, so all their food and riches were still there. The lepers had a feast day, then realized the starving masses inside, and said to each other "we have sinned (made a mistake) by not telling everyone inside the city what has happened..." The Greek word (hamartano) comes from a sports analogy, and means "to miss the mark" as in archery when the shooter fails to hit the bull's eye. An example of this is when Jesus freed the woman condemned by the Jewish leaders of adultery, and said to her "go and sin (miss the mark) no more." He implies that she has free will about whether she hits the mark, as when an archer hits the mark through much practice (sadhana), not sheer willpower. Just as the name of Lalitha Devi could be translated "Destroyer of Sin" and "Destroyer of Ignorance" so also could the Hebrew and Greek uses in the Bible be so translated correctly. The "problem" only arises when additional meanings and consequences are given to what the words actually mean. Language, and certain words in particular, are highly charged with connotations and denotations beyond their original primary meanings, even though the word itslf may have had no such additional nuances in its original sense. The concept of "on the highway to Hell" is nowhere found in either the Hebrew or Greek terms translated "sin," any more than adharma carries that concept. However, as we live adharma, do we not create our own Hell? Love and blessings in Her, Rick , "prainbow61" <paulie- rainbow@u...> wrote: > Namaste, > > I, too, find it deeply irritating to find any and all things forcibly > compared to Christianity. I find, particularly in the public dialog > here in the U.S. that Christianity is constantly pushed to the front > of the discussion, forcibly made the standard by which all other > things are compared and understood. > > Reminds me of trying to hold an interesting conversation in the home > of someone who has an untrained dog. > > It's disruptive, inappropriate and completely unneccesary. > Invariably, the one responsible for letting loose the beloved beast > says, with a large grin, something along the lines of: "Well, you > can't avoid Fido!" > > I would be interested in a discussion of those lines that were > brought up, that when translated into English, have been translated > as "sin" or "sinful" What are the original words and what do they > imply in their own context? > > I find it interesting that mainstream religions frequently become > repositories of developed or developing social taboos. Some of them > are very narrowly defined: a taboo against eating eggs on a thursday > during a new moon in wintertime when one's sister-in-law is pregnant > and you've just seen a black cat. Others are more broadly pronounced: > not sleeping with your sibling's chosen mates. Or most broadly: not > doing things that harm others. > > To understand concepts is not exactly the same as understanding great > texts. There is an interplay between the two. > > This is why I find it interesting to understand the original language > and context. > > And then forcibly compare it to Dianic Wicca. > > Just kidding. > > pr > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > I do not beleive that the concept of "sin" is applicable here, > > except in the most relative and colloquial sense of the word. > > > > There is no good energy, no bad energy -- only energy. Think of > > electricity; the same current might run thru a hospital, where it > > saves lives, then on thru a prison, where it charges an electric > > chair and puts a person to death. The electricity is doing nothing > > right or wrong; it is not saving lives to be good, or ending lives > > to be evil. It is just being electricity. > > > > In the same way, those who cultivate a relationship with Devi become > > conduits through whom She (Shakti/Energy) flows, either more or less > > consciously (in most people the flow is unconscious and > > unrecognized; in great souls, it is totally conscious -- the sadhak > > has become its eyes and ears; i.e., she or he is Devi). > > > > In between the totally unconscious and the totally conscious are the > > rest of us! As we work through our sadhana, bringing more and more > > consciousness to our flow of energy, we begin to realize the > > magnitude of this power and what can be done with it; how we can > > direct and use it. Will we remain modest and awed at the greatness > > we are experiencing through Her grace? Or will we forget Her as > > Devi, and think of Her only as Power -- a force to be controlled, > > used and directed to fulfill our petty goals and settle petty > > scores? > > > > How we answer that question determines what will happen next. > > Because the process of our development continues. If we abuse this > > Divine Power to gratify our lower selves, then we create a closed > > circuit; we redirect the flow in upon ourselves and eventually this > > scientifically *must* cause a short circuit (to continue with my > > electrical metaphor). > > > > And if we short-circuit, we become less than we were when we > > started: not just an unplugged (unconscious) appliance, but an > > unplugged and damaged appliance that must be repaired (at > > considerable expense of time and resources) before it can ever be > > plugged in (made conscious) again. > > > > I hope all of this demonstrates why I do not believe the idea > > of "sin" to be a useful concept in understanding this process. > > Rather than comparing Tantra or Hinduism with Christianity (which > > truly is comparing apples and oranges), it might be more useful to > > compare them to Applied Physics. (The physical sciences are, in > > fact, a great place for deepeneding one's understanding of > > Shaktism.) Sin is a moral concept implying reward and punishment; > > Tantra is a scientific concept implying simply cause and effect. > > > > Or so it seems to me. > > > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > > wrote: > > > I didn't realize tantra and Hinduism had the concept of "sin," or > > > used that word in particular. Despite the differences, it is > > amazing > > > how similar it is to Christianity in many ways. > > > > > > M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2004 Report Share Posted January 12, 2004 Hi again, Mary Ann ... As regards Sin in Hinduism, You wrote, "I think you are missing my point by going into such depth about scripture. I'm actually taking what I'll call an artist's view, or creative license, in my approach to the material." Nothing wrong with that, if it helps you get inside the issue. I just felt it was important to clarify the doctrinal issue, to avoid confusing or misleading other members who might be following the conversation. *** dominance / hierarchy is present in the scriptures, Hindu as well as Christian. There has been a lack of female scribes for a reason (dominance and hierarchy). To me, this may not lessen any spiritual truth expressed in the scriptures, but it has limited the spiritual truths expressed in scripture. *** I'd definitely agree with you that the "Divine Revelation" can get sullied in the process of reduction to "scripture." Even the greatest sages (and some of the Vedic rishis were, in fact, women) receive Truth through the matrix of a human mind, which can slightly color even the purest expression. That is why Hinduism in general, in Shaktism in particular, universally teaches that scripture can only point the way for us. In the end, each of us must receive and experience Truth for ourselves. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.